Except that during the 1850s slavery was lawful & practiced in the western territories of Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Utah & Nebraska.
In Kansas especially there was competition between slaveholder settlers and free-soilers in which for years slaveholders held the political whip-hand.
Also in New Mexico, Oklahoma & Utah slaveholders held the political upper-hand.
Even California, nominally a free-state, held large numbers of de facto slaves until the Civil War, and appointed pro-slavery US Senators, notably Gwin & Weller.
So there's no doubt that for Democrat slaveholders, political power was all-important because without it slavery was doomed.
And that such Democrats would project their own motives onto Republicans is, at least, understandable -- they still do it today.
But the fact remains that most grass-roots Republican voters were first motivated by books such as the Bible and "Uncle Tom's Cabin" -- so their feelings were first Christian moral & cultural, not just Marxist economics & Democrat politics.
By the 1850s it was clear there was a power struggle between the two sides. They were vying for seats in the Senate. There was no economic case for the spread of slavery in those areas because the labor intensive cash crops slaves were used for could not grow in those areas. Consequently, there were never many slaves in those territories.
In Kansas especially there was competition between slaveholder settlers and free-soilers in which for years slaveholders held the political whip-hand. Also in New Mexico, Oklahoma & Utah slaveholders held the political upper-hand. Even California, nominally a free-state, held large numbers of de facto slaves until the Civil War, and appointed pro-slavery US Senators, notably Gwin & Weller. So there's no doubt that for Democrat slaveholders, political power was all-important because without it slavery was doomed.
No, it was not that slavery was doomed. They surely had to see it was doomed in every place that industrialized anyway as Britain and France had. What was doomed if they did not keep pace with seats in the Senate was their ability to protect themselves from even more rapacious trade and tax policies being pushed through by Northern special interests.
And that such Democrats would project their own motives onto Republicans is, at least, understandable -- they still do it today.
No question there was a power struggle between the two sides. Trying to portray the North/Republicans of that time as lily white/pure of heart etc is a complete joke. They were as greedy as any people in history. They had been sucking money out of the South for generations and were trying to pass federal legislation that would allow them to dip their paws even deeper into Southern wallets.
But the fact remains that most grass-roots Republican voters were first motivated by books such as the Bible and "Uncle Tom's Cabin" -- so their feelings were first Christian moral & cultural, not just Marxist economics & Democrat politics.
Their interests were in jobs in industry and public works projects (paid for mostly by taxes paid by Southerners). People have always been willing to vote themselves other people's money.
You keep doubling down on the same BS.
Slavery was like holding a rattlesnake by the tail. Only a few wealthy southerners owned enough slaves to make it worth fighting for - and they were not the type to do their own fighting.
The southerners who actually fought, were NOT fighting to keep slavery. My great-grandfather was one of them, and we have all of his letters. He and everyone he fought with were fighting to protect their homeland from economic tyranny and invasion.
Here you go again with your technique of telling us something which is true, but very misleading. Rather than illuminating the picture, what you are telling us serves to misdirect and hide the truth.
In all of New Mexico territory, when it stretched from Texas to California, there were less than a dozen slaves in the entire place.
There were probably only a few slaves in all of Kansas, Oklahoma, Nebraska and Utah, but you are dishonestly trying to leave the impression that this is equivalent to the millions of slaves in the Southern states. I'd wager there were more slaves in Pennsylvania and New Jersey at this time than there were in the territories.
This is what I mean about you. You argue dishonestly. The teeny tiny amount of slavery in the "territories" is insignificant compared to plantation slavery in the Southern states where there were hundreds of thousands of slaves in each state.